Welcome to the Nishma Policy Blog

Monday, January 2, 2017

With the recent survey conducted by
Nishma Research (no connection to this Nishma) on why people leave Orthodoxy (see
http://nishmaresearch.com/social-research.html),
the issue of “Off the Derech” (a subject which we have also previously
addressed in this blog at http://nishmapolicy.blogspot.ca/2015/10/beyond-off-derech-why-is-someone.html)
has again become a focus of the Orthodox world. The survey has presented a
large amount of information on why people leave Orthodoxy. A challenge still
exists, however, in how this data is then to be processed and understood. There
are also those who wish to describe the data as presenting how individuals wish
to explain their departure from Orthodoxy and, thereby, not necessarily the
real reasons. Either way, the data must be recognized as very personal and not
fully dispassionate. What are we thus to learn, what can we learn, from this
information?

Part of the difficulty in analyzing
this data emerges from a lack of, what we may term, a sociological or
psychological framework from which to evaluate the data. We have individuals
stating that they left Orthodoxy for a specific reason: an actual experience.
The fact is that there may have been others who had the same experience but,
even while having a similar immediate reaction, did not decide to thereby leave.
We also could possibly find individuals who had a similar experience but did
not have a similar reaction to it as the one who left. In this regard, it is
even possible that, in some circumstances, a reaction to the experience could
have been reached by another which could have resulted in a greater allegiance
to Orthodoxy. (I am reminded of the story of the two individuals who responded
to the Holocaust in fully opposite manners; one questioning ‘How could there be
a God?’ and the other declaring ‘How could there not be a God?’) This is, of
course, not to say that there is no great value in identifying the external
events that are defined as instrumental in bringing about a lifestyle change.
What we, though, must also recognize is the significance of the human factor in
this analysis.

With this in mind, it would thus be
significant to include, as it also involves lifestyle transformation, the
process of kiruv [the movement of
people to Orthodoxy] in such an investigation. What we may be trying to
identify is why people go through certain lifestyle changes but to honestly do
so we must recognize that the study of specific lifestyle movement is still
part of an examination of lifestyle change in general. As such, including in
this study an investigation of why people become Orthodox may greatly assist the
examination of why people leave Orthodoxy. Of course, these are two different
phenomena but a fuller recognition of the dynamic nature of the subject we are
studying could be of great assistance. There is the specific nature of a change
and there is the issue of change in itself.

A broader definition of the subject
could also be a great help in the process of reviewing various categories of
observance which were identified in the survey but did not fit easily into
simple categories. These would include those who were described as
‘double-lifers’, who maintained some aspects of identity as Orthodox but not
others. Such a fuller recognition of the dynamic nature of the subject matter
would also recognize those who have gone through multiple changes. There are
those who became Orthodox and then left and there are those who left Orthodoxy
and then came back. Such movement must also be a consideration in a study of
this nature.

In a certain way, I already
introduced this overall consideration in my previous post on the subject when I
raised the idea that we should be scrutinizing as well why people remain
Orthodox. I presented the assumption that much of the discussion on this
subject applies the theory from physics that objects stay in a state of inertia
unless acted upon by another force. We simply assume that people will stay frum [observant] unless they are acted
upon not to be. Is this assumption, though, actually correct? Are human beings so
‘inert’? The dynamism of life which we are now asserting – with its myriad of
possible human responses to the same stimulus – may actually point to another
reality. The human being may not be in such an inert state but may really be,
inherently, in a dynamic psychological and sociological state which would mean
that change is to be expected. In fact, people usually go through many changes
in their lives – natural growth, marriage, parenthood, etc.—even within more
settled lifestyle choices. Different human beings are also simply different in their
resistances to and earnest longings for change. Our understanding of the nature
of human beings must necessarily affect how we look at this entire subject.

* * * * *

I once attended a shiur from Rabbi Chaim
Lifshitz, the noted Torah scholar and psychologist from Israel, who
addressed the issue of why, as presented in T.B. Yevamot 64a, the prayer of a tzaddik ben tzaddik [a righteous child of a righteous individual]
is more effective than the prayer of a tzaddik
ben rasha [a righteous child of an evil-doer]. In a broader sense, this
would clearly seem to indicate that the former has achieved some level of
accomplishment that the latter did not achieve, and could not achieve, by the
nature of each one’s very upbringing. Rabbi Lifshitz’s question was: what could
this be?

To further highlight the nature of this
question, he also quoted the famous gemara
in T.B. Berachot 34b which states makom she’baalei teshuva omdim tzadikim
gemurim einum omdim [in a place where those who have
repented stand, those who are completely righteous are not able to stand]. This
statement would seem to present the totally opposite view, that one who has
gone through religious movement and has emerged righteous – similar, in a
sense, to the tzaddik ben
rasha – has achieved a level of accomplishment that one who did not go
through such religious movement could not achieve. To Rabbi Lifshitz, the
question was now expanded: what is it about religious movement that could yield
such opposing conclusions as to its effect?

At issue is the very nature of
individual identity. Change inherently introduces dynamic motion into this
nature and, with it, a force of potential clarity as to one’s individuality.
The ba’al teshuva, by definition, has
created flux in his/her being: first, through actions which would be defined by
the Torah system as transgressions, with the reinforcement of the associated
drives, and then the overcoming of these forces with subsequent observance. Identity,
as such, has a value of being the persistently individual mark of this person
throughout this dynamic movement. This is what distinguishes the ba’al teshuva. The individual is not
just the result of the outside forces which have molded his/her personality.
Through this dynamism, he/she has made his/her own essential, internal mark.

Rabbi Lifshitz pointed this out in
connection to Avraham Avinu. There
was struggle in his life. He was born into a culture of idolatry. He emerged
though, distinct, as Avraham. The being Avraham became could not simply be seen
as Terach’s son for Avraham clearly was distinct from his father in his choice
of being. There is, inherently, such a call in our being -- to be recognized as
distinct. In the world of psychology, this is most noted in the study of
adolescence when the child is clearly wishing to distinguish himself/herself
from his/her parents. There is, of course, much true challenge in such movement
as Avraham experienced and not all can be successful in achieving the desired
goal. But the one like Avraham Avinu,
who can overcome powerful negative forces and emerge righteous, dynamic and
unique as an individual clearly stands out. The ba’al teshuva is clearly dynamic and unique but also righteous.

But, then, Rabbi Lifshitz turned to the
specific challenge that must have thus faced Yitzchak Avinu. It was, in a certain way, easier for Avraham to establish
his own individual identity for there was the comparison with Terach. Avraham’s
drive for righteousness inherently also served the value of the creation of his
own, distinct identity. How could Yitzchak, though, make his own mark of
individuality, for righteousness in his case would call upon him to follow in
the footsteps of his truly illustrious father? This, Rabbi Lifshitz contends,
is the challenge of the ben tzaddik –
to also develop his/her own distinct individuality while walking in the path of
his/her upbringing. And this is the accomplishment of the tzaddik ben tzaddik for such dynamic individuality should also be
part of the personality of the true tzaddik.
This was the accomplishment of Yitzchak Avinu.
The tzaddik ben tzaddik is clearly
righteous but also dynamic and unique.

Within the broader context, what Rabbi
Lifshitz is further identifying for us is the multi-faceted nature of the human
personality. While he does not address them, there are also forces of inertia,
both positive and negative, within the human personality. There is attraction
to the familiar especially if it has also been agreeable. Simply, without even
considering the effects of external stimuli, within the very nature of an
individual is a collection of different psychological forces, each affecting
potential responses in a variety of distinct and, even, contradictory, ways.
Data regarding the effects of external stimuli are still, obviously, very
important in understanding the process of lifestyle change but to disregard the
vibrant nature of the human personality would be equally, seriously problematic.
To study movement within lifestyle clearly demands an investigation of the
external stimuli that may cause such change but it also demands an examination
of the internal dynamics of the being going through this movement. Study of the
stimuli that lead one to go ‘off the derech’ – and/or, by extension, become frum ­­-- also demands consideration of
the personal human processes within variant individuals.

* * * * *

The processes by which we relate to the
external world must also be considered. Certain important, personal,
psychological forces within an individual that affect the very movement of
change have been identified. We wish to stay the same and we wish to be
different. Any decision we make, even without consideration of the actual external
issues at hand, is affected by this tension. What we also often don’t consider
is how our decisions related to such external stimuli can also be affected by
similar tensions within other aspects of our personality. Other psychological
factors – tied more to how we see, relate and interact with the world – are
thus also significant. Within this context, we may wish to focus on three at
this time: pleasure, truth and ethics. These categories are found
extensively in any discussion on lifestyle change of the nature we are
discussing but their depth is often overlooked. The present goal, though, is
not to actually present this depth but to simply introduce a recognition of the
importance of such investigations in the context of this discussion.

For an external event to affect a human
being it must, in fact, somehow be drawn into the personal mechanisms of a
person. Objective truth, for example, is really not a significant factor, in
itself, in connection to human behaviour. The fact that the North Star is 400
light years away, for example, does not, in itself, have personal relevance to an
individual unless this information is somehow perceived as having some type of
effect on the person. This is true of all external information – some, though, has
more obvious personal effects while others, such as this knowledge of the North
Star’s distance from Earth, have much less, if any. When we thus consider such
matters as pleasure, truth or ethics, what we must also investigate is through
what processes this external information connects with a person, thereby affecting
human behaviour. This is not to say that these three are the only yardsticks that
may be applied by a human being in the process of converting external stimuli
into an effect on personal behaviour. Pleasure, truth and ethics, however, are
three extremely significant ones especially in our context. They clearly also
were referred to in the discussion surrounding the Nishma Research survey and
its results. A challenge, however, may be that these yardsticks were not, in
themselves, subject to investigation.

What these yardsticks each do in regard
to external stimuli is, essentially, evaluate their connection to personal
interest. The pleasure yardstick evaluates the information pursuant to the
spectrum of pain and pleasure of the individual. Similarly, the truth yardstick
evaluates such facts along the spectrum of truth and falsehood – as established
by the individual -- while the ethics yardstick does so in regard to the
spectrum of the ethical and unethical – again as established by the individual.
The external information converted into such evaluations as determined by these
yardsticks will then affect a person’s behaviour. These yardsticks in
themselves, though, are not objectively defined. While there may be objective
elements in them, they also have subjective elements. The issue, as such, cannot
just be what the impact of some fact will be upon such a yardstick. The issue must
also include how a person arrived at his/her determination of the yardstick and
the influence of the subjective in that very process.

Let’s also consider the further impact
of what we may perceive to be the direct cause-and-effect of a stimulus on a
person in regard to these yardsticks. Applying the principle of pleasure, telling
a person that a sandwich tastes good, and is thus pleasurable, would be
expected to lead to this person eating this sandwich. But who is to say that,
even if the person would find the eating of this sandwich to be pleasurable, if
he/she wishes such pleasure. If for some reason, though, the person specifically
does not wish to experience such pleasure, the result will be the opposite;
he/she will not eat the sandwich. Such recognition of possible differing
results in behaviour is but a further example of the complexity in determining
the connection between outside stimuli and resultant behaviour. We must start
with the reality that each person’s determination of whether a certain taste is
pleasurable or not – or even painful – can be different. As such, we may have
the fact that the person did not eat the sandwich but what does it really say
about the sandwich – and the person? Does the sandwich simply not taste good –
to all? Is it perhaps, though, that while others found this sandwich pleasurable,
this person subjectively did not? Then, though, we may ask: does it really
taste good but the person wished to avoid this pleasure for some reason?

A similar analysis can be applied to the
truth and ethics yardsticks as well with the obvious resultant effect of
further complicating the nature of this overall study. A study of the effect of
external stimuli on individuals cannot just be about the external stimuli. It
must consider the individuals as dynamic factors in the causal sequence. In
this regard, the yardsticks of evaluation used by these individuals must also
be recognized for their dynamic nature.

* * * * *

The connection of the truth yardstick to
personal behaviour is, of course, a key. At issue is not really, as mentioned,
the truth of the external fact itself but the truth of the consequence which,
in turn, will affect behaviour. Our example of the North Star being 400 light
years from Earth is a case in point. Whether this fact is true or not, in a
vacuum, is really irrelevant in itself to the truth yardstick tied to personal
behaviour because the fact, generally, has no impact on behaviour. The truth,
though, of whether someone has an illness or not is of a very different nature
because this fact will, necessarily, impact the person because of the possible
consequences. Questions which reverberate with the person thus emerge: Is it
true that this is the illness? Are the assumed consequences true? How do I know
that what is being presented as the truth is actually correct? If we then
re-consider the issue of the North Star, what if someone begins to develop an
argument for how the truth of this information could impact upon a person? How
someone considers such an argument could then be deemed as having an effect.
There is also the desire, in many people, to simply know the truth of any fact.
The question of truth has many different elements within it. This is so with
the pleasure and ethics yardsticks as well. The cause-and-effect of lifestyle
change is clearly not linear. Many questions emerge – with many, different
possible answers.

It is thus of significance in any
discussion of the causes of lifestyle change to consider the multi-dimensional
nature of the issue. We are clearly not discussing a matter of simple and clear
cause-and-effect. At the centre of the movement is the dynamic nature of the
human personality with a multitude of considerations which may be elements in
any decision of this nature. In this regard, it is important to truly look at
the three yardsticks to which I am referring. The subjective nature of the
pleasure yardstick is basically understood – but it can also be easily
overlooked. We see this in the process of kiruv
in that arguments are often made with an assumption of a certain result when,
in fact, people can respond differently across a wide spectrum. (Not everyone,
for example, experiences spiritual elevation as the Shabbos table.)

The role of the pleasure yardstick can
even be greatly misapplied in viewing the phenomena of people leaving
Orthodoxy. The perceptions of people finding the practice of Orthodoxy to be
lacking pleasure, and thus exiting such practice, creates almost contradictory
responses. In one way, there is reluctance in accepting such a conclusion for
there is a hesitancy to define such practice as unenjoyable or painful. People
want to promote Orthodox practice as pleasurable. In another way, an opposite
assumption also seems to exist at the same time -- that, obviously, not being
observant would be more pleasurable -- and, as such, a major reason for people
leaving Orthodoxy would be expected to be the desire for more pleasure. Is
Orthodox practice, as such, more or less pleasurable? Is pleasure a motivation
for observance or a motivation against? This distinction in approach is then
often explained in terms of the pleasures of the non-Orthodox lifestyle being
more carnal or physical while the pleasures of the Orthodox lifestyle being
more spiritual or ethereal, with the implication that the latter forms of
pleasure are superior. This question then touches upon the ethical yardstick,
connecting the issues involved with that yardstick to those associated with
this yardstick. That in itself is also a further argument that highlights the
challenge that what one finds pleasurable is really subjective and personal.
Some people like being Orthodox and some do not – and there can be numerous
reasons for both possibilities. The challenge, again, is not to assume a single
personality profile for every person is different.

What
does it say, though, about observance in that it may be less pleasurable? Is there not then a need for a significant argument
for maintenance of observance even though such observance may be less
pleasurable or even painful? The issue of the pleasure, of sacrifice, the pain
of it, then becomes a further issue. This in turn touches upon questions of
metaphysics and the truth yardstick. What is again often overlooked is the
distinctive individuality of all human beings. What is often not recognized is
that an argument for universal observance of some lifestyle connected to some comprehensive
standard such as the system of Torah, must be personal. A byline of this Nishma
declares that the way of Torah is: From Sinai to Self. Each connection of a
person to Torah must be, by definition, unique. This does not mean one cannot
learn from the experience of the other but that it must be approached with thoughtfulness.

Truth also seems to be approached as a
given without the recognition of the subjective – and objective -- in this
determination and investigation. The complexity of this issue of epistemology
is often ignored. Of course, there are some concrete parameters to such an
investigation – in the base of 10, 1+1 does always =2 and 1+1 equaling 3 is
always wrong – but the different possibilities of what may be correct answers
in general -- given our limited knowledge of all the facts -- is also much more
numerous than many may want us to believe. The result is people speaking in
terms of a definite or arguing that the only definite is that there is no
definite – both problematic theories especially pragmatically. While the fact
that we cannot be absolutely certain of much of our knowledge of reality must
be recognized, it is just as obstinate to assume that any possibility is then
of equal value. There is a value in the best possible choice given one’s
analysis. This does not mean, though, that there will then be universal
acceptance of this universal best possibility for there could still be
disagreement regarding the best form of analysis. Fundamental disagreement
exists in how truth is reached – from faith to logic to intuition and all the
subsets and divergent definitions in between. Discussions of lifestyle changes
of this nature invariably touch upon the issue of truth – but then how we know
truth is rarely, honestly investigated. If it is introduced, it is simply done
so in support of the desired conclusion. Opening up the discussion honestly,
though, does not necessarily have to lead to nihilism. We make decisions every
day. The call is to do so bearing the weight of responsibility.

The role of the subjective in the ethics
yardstick must also be clearly recognized. Because our ethical perceptions are
so emotionally powerful to us, it is difficult for us to question our ethical
perspectives – but the question always exists: how do we know what is ethical?
How do we know that our present ethical perspectives are really correct? How
can we be so sure when we act upon our ethics? The alternative is obviously
most frightening for how could a world exist without any ethical parameters?
But then, again, how much evil and harm has been done by those acting upon an
ethical perspective they believe to be correct? These questions obviously go
beyond just the issue of lifestyle change but much of this personal
investigation of ethics exists in the context of lifestyle change. Arguments
are presented for lifestyle change based upon ethics; what is often really
being said, though, regards more the self than the system. The argument may be
that the person made a move because he/she disagreed with the ethics of his/her
previous lifestyle. It cannot be that the previous lifestyle is objectively
unethical as that determination is, actually, inherently problematic; such a
determination opens up a whole realm of thought, investigation and questioning
which usually is not truly undertaken in most cases of lifestyle change. What
is, honestly, simply identified is that the given system has a different ethic
than the person. It is a personal challenge. This should yield a different
argument than is often the case. It is not ‘right and wrong’ but ‘like and
dislike’. (We are not talking about situations when the system clearly is seen
as violating its own ethics in a given situation – such as abuse by a teacher
in a religious school. That is a different discussion.)

There is obviously much to discuss as I
attempt to open this discussion to the personal. This is not to say that there
is no benefit from the statistical analysis of lifestyle change and the
identification of general trends. Quite the opposite: it can still be of
immense value. For this the Nishma Research study must be noted. A great problem
exists, though, when we discount and/or ignore the personal. In almost every
aspect of such a study, individuality plays a significant role. Lifestyle
change must always be seen as personal. Beyond that, the connection of any
person to Torah must be recognized as highly individualistic and personal. We
talk of the seventy faces of Torah. This really means there is, within certain Halachic and Hashkafic parameters, a different Torah for every person. (The
question of how we draw the line of these parameters is, obviously, an important
one within Torah, especially in that we accept some distinctions but reject
others. That discussion, though, is beyond the frame of this posting. To begin
such a study, though, please see Tolerance,
Nishma Introspection 5760-3 available on line at http://www.nishma.org/articles/introspection/introspection5760-3.pdf.)
What works for one does not necessarily work for the other: the genius of Torah
is that it connects to the individual in a unique manner responsive to that
individual. While there are obviously objective, general tenets involved in any
analysis of a lifestyle, it is necessary for us to always consider, most
significantly, the force of individuality.